New info suggests a large watch team with an actual product in the pipeline.

Apple's so-called "iWatch" may indeed be more than just an experimental project, according to new details provided by Bloomberg. The publication cited two people familiar with the matter who claimed Apple's wristwatch team has as many as 100 product designers on it, including Senior Director of Engineering James Foster and manager Achim Pantfoerder. The reported sheer size of the team may be enough to give skeptics pause, as it sounds like Apple may have been iterating on the design for some time.

"The team, which has grown in the past year, includes managers, members of the marketing group, and software and hardware engineers who previously worked on the iPhone and iPad," Bloomberg wrote, citing its unnamed sources. "The team’s size suggests Apple is beyond the experimentation phase in its development, said the people."

The report comes days after the New York Timesand Wall Street Journal first claimed to have information on an Apple watch, which is expected to have a curved glass surface and possibly run a version of iOS. The device is reputed to already be in testing and Apple is said to have begun talks with manufacturers about the project.

According to Bloomberg, this isn't the first time Apple has dabbled in wearable devices—the company has reportedly worked on fitness trackers in the past, but no such devices ever made it to market. As such, the "iWatch" may be a culmination of lessons learned from those past experiments, though there's no guarantee we'll see the device anytime soon.

I was thinking that somebody at Apple decided the iPhone 5 was too big and unwieldy, so they came up with an even smaller form factor for the iPhone 6. Then somebody else realize they could add a wrist strap to it...

I claim foul. 100 product engineers? Wasn't there like 3 people, not including Jobs on the iMovie team; and I thought I read around 10-20 people for the iPhone team. It's pretty impossible to keep something a secret with a 100 product engineers on it. Just my thought.

Ok, so almost nobody wears a watch anymore. I have several fine watches including a nice one left to me from my granddad just silently rusting away in my cupboard.

But ... This is Apple. They'll come up with multiple compelling use-cases. Tech critics will say its rubbish. Apple will sell them by the million.

Features:

SimplicityStyleShows unread email / twitter / Facebook Lets you control your music Er? Integrated with Siri - Dick Tracey mode - to let you answer email / twitter / Facebook on the go.(Tim Cook is old enough to have grown up on the original Dick Tracey comic strips) Set your phone to silent / ring Webcam - hold up your wrist and FaceTime! Vibrates when you get a phone call / email / etc ( Useful if you have a new larger iPhone 6 that goes in your bag not in your pocket )

This would explain why Apple changed the Nano design. They embraced the watch band market and saw the relative popularity. Then they altered the Nano to remove it from being competition from their new watch device under development.

I am interested to see what direction this goes. What sort of cabilities with Apple put into the device? It seems logical that it will sync to an iPhone or iPad.

One thing about the older Nano. I tried turning it into a watch. But mine would lose 5 minutes every day making the watch aspect worthless since it couldn't keep time.

I wonder if it ticks Apple off that everyone's iphone is covered with some type of case or another. A watch would be a perfect Apple item that would always be visible and wouldn't get wrapped up in a block of plastic or rubber.

If they threw in the accelerometers / pedometer etc into the watch, they could easily compete with UP / Fitbit / etc. You're already wearing it on your wrist, it could just talk back to your iPhone over Bluetooth 4.0 with low power consumption. That coupled with SMS (iMessage) / Meeting reminders etc would have me seriously considering an Apple "iWatch"...

If they threw in the accelerometers / pedometer etc into the watch, they could easily compete with UP / Fitbit / etc. You're already wearing it on your wrist, it could just talk back to your iPhone over Bluetooth 4.0 with low power consumption. That coupled with SMS (iMessage) / Meeting reminders etc would have me seriously considering an Apple "iWatch"...

Bingo. The personal fitness market is hot.

Also, watches are way more convenient and class than digging for your cell phone. Personal experience.

If they threw in the accelerometers / pedometer etc into the watch, they could easily compete with UP / Fitbit / etc. You're already wearing it on your wrist, it could just talk back to your iPhone over Bluetooth 4.0 with low power consumption. That coupled with SMS (iMessage) / Meeting reminders etc would have me seriously considering an Apple "iWatch"...

I wondered about that too, but I thought devices like that were supposed to be worn close to the torso (the Fitbit is). The arm moves too much for accurate readings.

Maybe there is a way to compensate for that extra motion with software and such.

I doubt it'll be called "iWatch." Time-keeping won't be its central purpose. Notifications and fitness tracking (extending the Nike partnership?) will be much more important. (Of course it'll tell time just fine, that's just not the reason you'll want one.)

If they threw in the accelerometers / pedometer etc into the watch, they could easily compete with UP / Fitbit / etc. You're already wearing it on your wrist, it could just talk back to your iPhone over Bluetooth 4.0 with low power consumption. That coupled with SMS (iMessage) / Meeting reminders etc would have me seriously considering an Apple "iWatch"...

I wondered about that too, but I thought devices like that were supposed to be worn close to the torso (the Fitbit is). The arm moves too much for accurate readings.

Maybe there is a way to compensate for that extra motion with software and such.

Probably won't make it a pedometer. More likely they'll just integrate it with Nike+.

What can a iWatch do that a redesigned iPod Nano can't? This isn't the first time Apple has stepped back to a previous design road. The iPod Shuffle has buttons again, and iTunes 11 has color in the icons.

So not happening... Who even wears a watch anymore other than as an accessory??

Although you do so clumsily, you bring up precisely what Apple won't do. It won't be called "iWatch" nor will it be marketed as a watch. They aren't competing with watches nor the narrative that comes with the term (i.e accessory, luxury, time piece, tradition, etc). Apple intends to create a new product category that's crafted around the idea of wearable technology. The core idea around any wearable item (from a shoe to a t-shirt) is that its flexible enough to be tailored to a wide variety of tastes. They might not get it right the first time. In that case it will be a small category until they do.

Trik wrote:

If they threw in the accelerometers / pedometer etc into the watch, they could easily compete with UP / Fitbit / etc. You're already wearing it on your wrist, it could just talk back to your iPhone over Bluetooth 4.0 with low power consumption. That coupled with SMS (iMessage) / Meeting reminders etc would have me seriously considering an Apple "iWatch"...

The device will encroach on the fitness market but it will hardly be its main focus. Fitness is not exploding and it has always tapered off shortly after January. What is exploding is making computing invisible enough that its as though you are wearing it. Hence "wearable technology". It just so happens that capturing and quantifying human data will be an inevitable outcome.

The people who make the Fitbit must be watching this carefully. An iDevice of this kind could be a tough competitor. Mind you, a lot of users would need iGlasses to see (let alone operate) anything as small as the screen on such a watch.

Tog was right. Killer app is authentication . "Buy this thing for your wrist and you can ignore annoying calls without digging for your phone, read messages. Oh and one more thing...never type a password again."

It would make a lot of sense to give the Nano bluetooth, a watch-friendly case (perhaps even an 'official' watchband), and hooks in the iOS API so that it can have to way communication with an iPhone or iPad, or even Mac desktop.

With Apple's vertical integration, it would likely be more solidly integrated than something like my Pebble, but would never be cross-platform. I don't really understand the excitement, but I see the business sense. Apple's falling behind Google in the wearable computing trend, and they need to throw out some products to keep up.

Almost all these things were done with it (+ one prototype had an OLED display). Another great use of it is just as interface to a larger/more powerful device you dont want to hold at all times. imagine gps navigation (not so much car, but pedestrian). do you want to be carrying your phone to constantly look at where you should go, or simply have a watch you can wear on your wrist leverage the phone. can imagine it as an inteface to your music player as well. we also played around with bluetooth based authentication.